We have freely given away all the technical information needed for a
technical team familiar with the Aharonov-Bohm effect to reproduce the
device.

We have freely given away the technical results of 30 years of very hard
research and work, and $300,000 right out of my own back pocket. That
isn't
much money in "big research", but it is a helluva lot for a working man.

We have strongly pointed out exactly what is wrong with the present
electrical engineering, and why it will always keep the gas pump on your
automobile and the power meter on your house. We did not do this with
"arm-waving", but with hard physics references. Anyone can read the
references and make up their own mind what the greater areas of physics
have
to say about the decrepit old classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory taught
to
our electrical engineers.

So everything you or anyone else needs to know, is already released.
The
only thing we have not done is just flat give away our patent. Since
the
five of us worked on that for nearly 10 years, let me put it this way:
I'll
believe you are sincere when I see that "open community" freely taking
their
own personal incomes for the last 10 years and giving them to free
energy
researchers.

Now as to the "overunity community". There are some good researchers, a
few. There are a whale of a lot of folks who also know only about
Bachelor
of Science level EE, and nothing else. Some know ordinary electrical
circuits well, thereby thinking they completely understand electronics
and
electrodynamics. They don't, as even a casual reading of the physics
literature will show.

However, most of these fellows who continually howl about how easy it is
to
do overunity, etc., have never even seen a working COP>1.0 system. They
have never built one, and most never will. Heck, if it really were
easy,
then those sharp young graduate students and post doctoral scientists
our
universities keep turning out, would have done all this 80 years ago.
They
didn't.

The same fellows who so prate about every other inventor or researcher
who
is seriously struggling with the problem, also will not read a reference
cited. E.g., we did not create or discover the Aharonov-Bohm effect,
further generalized to the Berry phase, then later to the geometric
phase.
Let me ask you this: How much have you yourself read, how many papers,
dealing with those three subjects? There are at least 20,000 papers in
those areas, in the hard physics literature. How many have you read?
If
not 100 in a survey, then you have not researched the subject. How many
have the other folks interested in the MEG read? Most have not read a
single one. For goodness sakes, even in Feynman's old 3-volumes of
sophomore physics, he covers the Aharonov-Bohm effect and misspells
Aharonov's name! Yet I've not had a SINGLE ONE of those harping so
hard,
even point that out. My conclusion is they have not even bothered to
read
the literature, even casually.

We have also tried to focus attention on how to think logically in
overunity
systems areas. E.g., here are the type questions a serious scientific
researcher in this area will ask and address (and research).

2. What does "Lorentz symmetrical regauging" of Heaviside's (Maxwell's)
equations in the staid old EE actually mean with respect to a physical
system? To a closed current loop system?

3. What is a "field" and does such exist in empty space? I warn you
that
is a very serious and difficult question, but it does have an answer. If
you
cannot answer it, then homework is needed.

4. How is a "field" and a "potential" actually defined? Suppose you
make
some change in the assumed "standard unit point static charge" that is
involved in the "definition". What does that mean?

5. What is Heaviside's nondivergent component of energy flow,
arbitrarily
discarded by Lorentz (and continued to this day) circa 1890s or so?

6. Why does the EE model assume a flat spacetime (falsified since 1916)
and
an inert vacuum (falsified for decades in particle physics)?

7. If both the vacuum and the local spacetime are inert (as modeled in
one's model), then one has insisted that the external environment is
always
inert. In other words, you cannot build and use a "windmill" if there
is
never a wind available to furnish the excess energy. Otherwise, you
will
have to crank the beast around yourself. So why do we build every
electrical power system that way, so that it always self-destroys all
"free
electrical winds" that DO arise magnificently in advanced
electrodynamics?

8. What is the effect of using a higher group symmetry EM model, such
as in
quaternion algebra, Clifford algebra, SU(2)X SU(2), O(3), etc.? Have
you
actually read the reference I so frequently cite, where Barrett (one of
the
pioneers of ultrawideband radar) examined Tesla's patented circuits in a
quaternion electrodynamics, and made some very startling and profound
discoveries?

9. Everyone importantly states that, well, it has to be proven. Heck,
we
agree wholeheartedly! E.g., have you checked the Bohren experiment I
frequently cite, which is one of that class of mechanisms that ALWAYS
yield
more energy output than the operator himself inputs? Ugh, you say!
Why,
that's in the IR and UV. Well, IR is heating. Wouldn't a big heater
that
puts out 18 times as much heat energy as the electrical energy the
operator
inputs, be quite useful? The experiment works anywhere, anytime. But
to
understand it, you will have to understand questions 1-4. Anyway, since
this "negative resonance absorption of the medium" is well known, widely
replicated, and has been around since the 1950s (see Letokhov's work),
then
why in the dickens are not the large national labs developing overunity
heating systems, say with COP = 9 or 10, to tremendously augment the
boiling
of water at our present power plants, thereby resoundingly reducing the
burning of hydrocarbons, pollution of the earth, destruction of the
biosphere --- and destruction of the taxpayers' pockets for electrical
power??? Also, why does the "overunity community" just shrug any such
hard
physics citation aside, and turn back to sophomore or trade school
electricity which has never built an overunity COP system yet?

10. Then there are those who like to yell "perpetual motion is what you
preach, and that is impossible!" Shucks, last I checked, Newton's first
law
of motion IS the law of perpetual motion. An object placed in a state
of
motion will remain in that state of motion perpetually, until an outside
force intervenes and places it in a second state of motion. Thereafter,
it
will remain in that SECOND state of motion until another outside force
intervenes and changes it state of motion, etc. So yes, perpetual
motion
is a characteristic of the universe, thank goodness! Else there would
be no
stability in any state of motion, and only wild and erratic
fluctuations.
In short, the organized macroscopic universe we inhabit could not exist
without perpetual motion. In a state of perpetual motion, e.g., the
object
maintaining its state of motion and energy does not receive any energy
input
nor does it do any work. So "input of energy" and "output of work" have
nothing at all to do with perpetual motion. Now, without repeating
myself,
please read my simple logical analysis of the standard "knee-jerk"
perpetual
motion statement by Planck, etc. That statement and its variants has
been
around for more than 100 years. Any sophomore in English can do a
logical
analysis of it, and find that it contains (1) a false premise, (2) a
true
statement, and (3) equating of the two as if the true statement proved
the
false premise. A total logical non sequitur, in proper logic language.
SO
WHY IN THE EVER-LOVING BLUE KITTY KAT HAS NO ONE APPARENTLY EVEN DONE A
SIMPLE LOGICAL ANALYSIS ON THE HOARY OLD STATEMENT THAT THE FALSE
PREMISE
"PERPETUAL MOTION IS IMPOSSIBLE" EQUATES TO A WORKING SYSTEM
CONTINUOUSLY
DOING EXTERNAL WORK WITH NO ENERGY INPUT AT ALL? This includes the
entire
scientific community, apparently, and also the entire "overunity"
community.
Why such obviously false statements continue to be propagated as
"truisms"
is an enigma.

11. In standard Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics theory and therefore
in
electrical power engineering, it is assumed that all EM fields and
potentials and their energy, come from their associated source charges.
Without any input of OBSERVABLE energy at all to any one of those source
charges. That irksome problem has been swept under the rug and hidden
from
the students for a century. The basis (broken symmetry of opposite
charges)
for the solution was discovered in 1957, if one takes the quantum field
theory of the charge rather than the sad old obsolete 1865 version of
it. I
pointed out in a little published paper in 2000 the solution to that
long
vexing problem, that Sen and others called "the most difficult problem
in
classical and quantal electrodynamics". It is not solvable in the
standard
electrical engineering theory; the EE model excludes the solution. HENCE
EVERY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PROFESSOR, AND TEXTBOOK TEACHES
A
MODEL THAT IMPLICITLY ASSUMES THAT EVERY EM FIELD, EVERY EM POTENTIAL,
AND
EVERY JOULE OF EM ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN AND IS FREELY CREATED
FROM
NOTHING AT ALL, IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION. So either we
have to solve the source charge problem, or we have to discard
conservation
of energy as being falsified by every charge in the universe. EITHER
WAY,
YOU OPEN UP THE VISTA THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUILD AND UTILIZE COP>1.0
AND
EVEN COP = INFINITY ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS.

12. Very few of the overunity researchers -- and very few electrical
engineers and even professors -- are clearly aware of the precise
difference
between coefficient of performance of a system and the efficiency of the
system. E.g., it has been said that no EM system can exhibit COP>1.0.
Well, try telling that to a solar cell. It may be only 17% efficient
(which
means it wastes 83% of all the energy it receives from the sunlight),
but it
has a COP = infinity. So does a windmill (efficiency usually less than
50%), a waterwheel (low efficiency usually), and even a sailboat. The
lack
of understanding of efficiency versus COP is so bad that I no longer
even
answer the usual silly questions one gets from folks who have not yet
studied even the elementary things to understand that difference.

13. And finally, there is the question of what powers a circuit or an
electrical power system. It isn't cranking the shaft of the generator.
Even the classical EE model itself assumes that all the EM field energy
and
EM potential energy -- i.e., every joule of EM energy in that circuit
and on
that power line --- comes freely from the associated source charges. So
"what powers a circuit" depends directly and only on "what furnishes the
NONOBSERVABLE (i.e., virtual and therefore subquantal) electromagnetic
energy TO THOSE SOURCE CHARGES. Please note that the answer to that
problem
does not appear in any electrical engineering book, in any university
curriculum, in the National Academy of Sciences, in the National Science
Foundation, etc. Yet it is THE FUNDAMENTAL overunity question.

Anyway, from the above 13 questions and criteria you can see my point.

If we do want to ever see free electrical energy from the vacuum,
powering
our homes and automobiles, etc., then we are going to have to "crack
through" this iron scientific mindset that has been built up since 1865
and
get back into modern physics.

It isn't going to be available on a silver platter. Starting even
before
Tesla, inventors --- thinking in their own terminology and often not
tied
into physics -- have tried to "give it away". They haven't succeeded
yet.
We have examples of it every day. I recently had a conversation with an
engineer in a battery company, that makes large batteries, and I mean
BIG
batteries. He simply read some of the stuff, particularly Bedini's
work,
and went into the lab and tried it out. Since switching was no problem
to
him and to that group, he got results immediately. He ran a small load
while continuously keeping the battery charged. We had a great
conversation
about the actual mechanism, but he had done his homework and read the
necessary references, so he got it very quickly.

So those who wish to get free energy out there, should get after it that
way. There is still no substitute for the hard scientific method. And
that
includes reading the literature, understanding the phenomenology,
understanding the limitation of the present engineering EM model,
learning
to at least think in terms of a higher model, etc.

When I hear something from folks in the overunity community dealing with
the
Bohren experiment, anti-Stokes emission, negative resonance absorption
of
the medium, etc., then I perk up my ears because now you are connected
with
that small part of the community that IS DOING SCIENTIFIC WORK IN THIS
AREA.

We will get free energy when we get the scientific mindset changed, and
that
will only come about when the young grad students and young post
doctoral
scientists get the word and start researching this are SCIENTIFICALLY
and by
the hardnosed scientific method. You cannot change the scientific
mindset
from the top down, but only from the bottom up. It will only change when
the
old dogs who control it and who so adamantly resist change die off and
get
out of the way.

Being an old dog, with serious physical condition etc., I do not expect
to
personally see it done. Just now, the powerful financial interests are
not
going to allow it, regardless of what has to be done to stop it. But
when
enough of the young just-starting out scientists are aware of it, and
then
go and do it, they simply cannot kill or otherwise stop everyone.

So that is what I personally am trying my best to do --- to get out all
the
information I can, and make it available. My intent is to try to help
those
coming young fellows not have to spend 30 years of their lives digging
this
mess out of the scattered bits and pieces all over physics. Let them
start
here, correct any errors I may have inadvertently made (all my pencils
still
need erasers, and so does everyone else's pencils!) and go from there.

It will be done, rest assured. I don't expect to see it, but it will be
done.

Best wishes in your own research, and try to focus some attention on
those
13 areas. The more you learn in each one of them, the better equipped
you
will be to do your own invention.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Dear Mr. Bearden

I appreciate Your effort to bring MEG to production stage. As You
explain
repeatedly at Your correspondence page, You need to collect huge
funding to
climb up a "cliff", on which all other inventors failed.
There is one interesting phenomena in today's world, namely "open
source"
movement. There are lots of experts scattered all over the world, who
share
their abilities to develop new pieces of software. And, what is more
interesting, they give it to the world for free.

Open source movement utilizes internet's communication capability to
join
in
various project. It is not defeatable, for it is not standard company.
It
has
no office, no bank account, for the participants work in their homes
worldwide.

Anyway, open source movement presents serious challenge to
normal
software houses.
As You are complaining about funding, I suggest to You: give the MEG to
the
world NOW. Make it "free"!

Form a group of experts, who will do the necessary research on the open, world-spread-community basis. They
will
accomplish it for free. The trade-off would be little financial gain
for
You.

Or - You can continue on the standard way: producing patents, collect
funds,
and... perhaps to join the crowd of inventors, who posses patented
prototypes but - that is all.
What is better? Decide Yourself.